Argument 7

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.
"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved." WORDS: 339 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-4-1 19:06:39

In this argument, the verdict is that the environment problems in Clearview will surely be solved if Ann Green wins the mayoral election. To support this conclusion, the speaker chiefly argues that Ann is devoted to protecting environment, and that a myriad of environment issues including pollution and more patients with respiratory illnesses appear under the lead of Frank Braun. However, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that this statement actually suffers from several critical blemishes, as discussed below.

To begin with, albeit Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, whether Ann will make great contributions to Clearview town is unknown. Perhaps Ann just says he or she will work effectively to ameliorate local environment, but no practical deeds have been fulfilled. Besides, the speaker also does not mention whether Frank Braun, the current mayor, has policing some policies to prevent natural circumstance from being destroyed. Lacking enough information about environment laws at present would undermine the speaker's conclusion.

Secondly, the credibility of the three phenomena the speaker cites in this statement is quite questionable. First, the number of factories in Clearview has doubled does not necessarily imply that these factories has no doubt caused pollution. It is highly possible that chief executives of factories have adopted powerful environment-friendly methods that will not pollute river, grass, air, etc. Secondly, increased air pollution levels may be caused by corporations in nearby cities, because air easily moves around. Thirdly, the actual reason why incidences of respiratory illnesses have increased by 25 percent is known. It is quite probable that certain flu happened last year caused the improvement of patients. Without considering these potential factors, the speaker is too cursory to arrives his or her ultimateness.

In summary, this statement indeed suffers from a few crucial fallacies as discussed above. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer would have to demonstrate that Frank Braun displays an aloof attitude toward environment, and further prove that the current air pollution and increased patients with respiratory illnesses is indeed caused by larger number of factories.

Issue 48

TOPIC: ISSUE48 - "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

WORDS: 535 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2008-3-31 15:57:14

The speaker asserts that the most significant historical and trends were made possible by groups of people, instead of the famous few; and that the study of history should accentuate the former rather than the latter. However, in my view the arguer fails to consider a variety of distinguished individuals who have contributed profoundly to the status of historical footnote. Therefore, I concede that some certain groups of people did contribute to particular historical events. Nevertheless, the famous few should be put in the first place when we study history.

Admittedly, in history special groups of people had played a pivotal role in significant advancements--whether in politics, arts or sciences. For instance, the study of history and appreciation of arts tends to research groups of people in the Middle Ages; and researchers study the culture created by the multitudes, instead of a few famous painters or musicians. Besides, western civilization owes its very existence to Benedictine nuns, instead of a monk named FA. Just prior to and during the decline of the Rome Empire, many women fled to monasteries, bringing with them various dowries which they used to acquire artifacts and knowledge. Without these nuns, the western culture would otherwise have to be lost forever with the fall of the Rome Empire.

Nevertheless, many great individuals have contributed profoundly to the advancements of history in many realms, in which groups of people become nameless and faceless. Consider, for instance, the American Civil War conducted by Abraham Lincoln. Albeit many other people worked their own functions to the war, it is Lincoln that abolished unfair laws in the south of America and justified the rights of black people. Or consider any noble innovations in technology, almost all of which are made possible by prominent individuals. Microsoft's Bill Gates is largely responsible for the Windows series operating systems, which have extensively altered the style of life. Greatness happened in natural sciences are also achievements of special individuals, such as classical mechanics by Newton, the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein and the model of plane by Wright brothers. More importantly, no group of people played a vital role when in retrospect.

The speaker might point out that in the fields of architecture and engineering, in which groups of people were the primary force behind illustrious accomplishments--such as the Great Wall and Pyramid. Yet, it is "the famous few"--monarchs in these cases whose whims and egos were the source of power behind these great architectures. The arguer may also cite the example of various significant political activities in which innumerous groups of people participated in history. This will be easily refuted provide that these groups were leaderless ones. Without a determinant key leader, few groups of people would succeed in bringing to the masses great influences. For instance, Chinese people would have still been pressed by Japanese unless Mao Zedong led the Liberated War. Without Mahatma Gandhi, advocator of the nonviolent disobedience tactic, India would be still ruled by British.

In summary, the speaker overlooks many great individuals in history that have conduced towards a myriad of significant events and trends. Today, when studying historical matters, we can learn a lot from great figures more than learning about ordinary groups of people.

Argument 165

TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - The following appeared in a business magazine.
"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

WORDS: 336 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-3-31 13:58:42

The verdict of this statement is that tuna cans produced by Promofoods last year were healthy; therefore tuna cans were not the cause of consumer's dizziness and nausea. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites the result of experiment conducted by chemists from Promofoods: merely three chemicals were found in tuna cans and these three chemicals were common in any other kind of canned foods. This statement seems reasonable at first glance; however, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that this statement actually suffers from several blemishes, which would be discussed below.

Firstly, identification of the leaders of the survey would undermine the credibility of ultimateness: these chemists were employed by Promofoods. It is highly possible that these scientists were influenced or threatened by chief executive of Promofoods. Therefore, chemists who conducted the test of tuna cans may offer a false report that defied the truth.

Secondly, whether the tested tuna cans were based on random sampling is unknown. Perhaps chemists intentionally selected those tuna cans that were quite unlikely to be proved to contain disease-causing chemicals. It is also equally probable that merely 10 cans were sampled from eight million cans of tuna, which thus did not represent the majority of these cans. Consequently, any factor aforementioned above would undermine the conclusion.

Thirdly, even though the test conducted by Promofoods is fair and objective, the result did not consider certain other possible factors that might lend the support to this statement. Actually speaking, how many the three suspected chemicals had been discovered in sample is not touched. Therefore, we can not rule out the possibility that these three chemicals far outweighed standard of canned foods; therefore, it is actually these three excessive chemicals that contributed to dizziness and nausea of clientele.

In summary, this statement fails to convince us in many respects, as discussed above. To support the culmination, the speaker would have to demonstrate that chemists of Promofoods reported the truth of survey, and further provide more detailed information about the three kinds of suspected chemicals.

Argument 53

TOPIC: ARGUMENT53 - Thirteen years ago, researchers studied a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice. They discovered that these infants were more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mothers' production of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight. In a follow-up study conducted earlier this year, more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. Clearly, increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.

WORDS: 409 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-3-31 21:52:25

In this argument, the speaker claims that increased levels of melatonin before a child's birth will conduce towards shyness throughout this child's lifetime. To support this verdict, the arguer cites a study on a group of 25 infants, conducted by researchers thirteen years ago, who showed somewhat distress when exposed to unfamiliar circumstance. Besides, a follow-up study is also quoted by the arguer to demonstrate the conclusion. However, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that this argument actually suffers from several fallacies, as discussed below.

To begin with, the phenomenon that infants exhibited distress when exposed to an unusual odor or an unknown voice is quite normal. As a fresh life in the world, any one would feel somewhat of tension or nervous while his or her mother is not present. Moreover, this study of a group of 25 infants were held 13 years ago, which might not comply today's outcomes of research. Therefore, the credibility of this study is poorly supported by empirical proof.

Secondly, whether the infants involved in the research 13 years ago were random sampled is unknown. This statement does not refer to any condition of how special these infants were. Perhaps researchers selected those infants who were born in autumn on purpose, which would undermine this statement. In addition, it is equally possible that another chemical also increases in response to declining daylight. The speaker fails to rule out this potential chemical that may be the real reason for those infants' shyness.

Thirdly, the follow-up research conducted earlier this year is quite questionable and is not convincing as the speaker assumes. First, the results of this study are based on self-report. Thus we can not figure out whether these children actually express their inner feelings. It is probable that they had just experienced uninspiring things before they responded to questions in this study. Secondly, these children's shyness may due mainly to parental influence or deeply shaped by their seminal childhood event. In short, without considering these potential factors, the arguer is too cursory to arrive at his or her ultimateness.

To summary, this statement indeed suffers from a few critical flaws, as discussed above. To solidify the conclusion, the speaker would have to demonstrate that infants in the first study were chosen on the foundation of random sampling, and further prove that these infants are not affected by any other things during their maturing. Consequently, we need more detailed information to evaluate this statement.

Issue 208

TOPIC: ISSUE208 - "The way people look, dress, and act reveals their attitudes and interests. You can tell much about a society's ideas and values by observing the appearance and behavior of its people."

WORDS: 503 TIME: 00:48:10 DATE: 2008-3-28 14:49:48

The speaker asserts that people's attitudes and interests can be concluded from their daily behavior, and thus the appearance and behavior of a society's masses can unveil this society's ideas and values. I strongly accede to what the arguer proclaims. In effect, any society consists of various groups of people who represent certain culture or special-interest. Actions or speeches that people unconsciously exhibit do reflect the basic and true ideology of their inner conviction, and these actions and speeches therefore unmask the attitudes and values of the society that composed by these people.

To begin with, what people dress can uncover their inner convictions and divide these people into differing cultural or racial groups. Consequently, a person can be judged what peculiar group or team he or she belongs in light of his or her clothes. Consider, for instance, the Hip-Hop culture which is popular among young people in America. This kind of culture typically requires his adherents to wear extremely loose and huge clothe that is quite distinctive from any one else. Therefore suppose that a young man wearing extremely T-shirt walks towards you, he must be a member of the Hip-Hop cultural group. Moreover, it can be concluded that America is quite tolerant to special culture, provided that this culture does not advocate any behavior that poses harm to society.

Secondly, actions of a society's people can also unveil their ideology and sociopolitical assertions. Whether the society can tolerate its people's various behavior stands whether it is a respectful and civilized social community. For instance, several years ago in Tiananmen, China saw innumerous people accumulated there protesting Japan. The reason for this was simple: Japan amended history textbooks and refuted to admit that Japan once intruded China in the 1940s. Albeit these people were very disgruntled with the government of Japan, they did not adopt any kind of action of violence. Therefore these people were very respectful and reasonable with a view to their mild behavior in this incidence. Moreover, it is also conspicuous that the community was healthy and had exhibit high civilized morality.

In the realm of education, school children's behavior is quite different from other people who have grown up to be adults. These teenagers have not been socialized by any harmful event in society, and what they allege actually unveils the extent how a society is civilized. For instance, some young adolescents fostered by certain anti-social persons in Afghanistan, deeply believe in the ideology: they are prepared for body-bomb. Thus the society lacks basic ethics, which can be affirmed from the convictions of these children and the anti-social persons. By contrast, nations in Europe are highly developed and manifest their tolerant, respectful and civilized society in the terms of European splendid level of education.

In summary, certain group of people has distinctive characteristics that differentiate the group from any other ones. These features represent their people's attitudes and interests. Furthermore, the society's ideas and attitudes can be judged by observing how the society treats these special groups.

Argument 45

TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

WORDS: 420 TIME: 00:30:21 DATE: 2008-3-28 21:24:30

The conclusion of this statement is that deer being unable to conform to their traditional migration patterns between islands has caused the decrease of the number of arctic deer. To justify this verdict, the speaker cites the report of local hunters and quotes the effect that the recent global warming trends have on sea ice. However, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that this statement actually suffers from critical fallacies that would undermine the ultimateness.

Consider first the recent information reported by local hunters. These hunters said that the deer populations were declining. However, lacking sufficient evidence makes the reports unpersuasive. All what this statement provides is this result, without any cogent statistic data. Perhaps the hunters were merely engaged in hunting in just a few islands, but the area in which arctic deer live is quite broad. Thus, the credibility of hunters' observation is highly questionable. Moreover, it is equally probable that hunters are the very cause of the decrease of arctic deer. The reason for this is simple: hunters killed the deer. Since the arguer does not tell what kind of animal local hunters pursue, this possibility can not be ruled out.

Consider next the reason that the speaker considers as powerful. Albeit global warming trends is no doubt a fact, this trend is far more from the direct cause of diminishing number of arctic deer. For instance, whether the special ice that melted by higher climate is the very location where arctic deer live is unknown. Maybe the district where these deer search for food is left untended by the worldwide increasing temperature; therefore arctic deer have not influenced by this trend. In addition, supposing that worldwide warming climate has indeed melt the ice that surround the place where arctic deer live, as the speaker maintains, it is highly possible that certain island where arctic deer are fostering their next generation also is becoming warmer, and is abundant of delicious food. Consequently, arctic deer have no longer to move from one island to another and the population of deer keeps the same as before. In short, without considering and ruling out these and other possible potential factors, the speaker is too cursory to arrive at his or her conclusion.

From what discussed above, this statement indeed suffers from several flaws that would weaken the conclusion. To solidify the reasoning, the speaker would have to provide more detailed information about what the local hunters actually had finished, and further demonstrate that islands where arctic deer live are not affected by global warming trends.

Issue 130

TOPIC: ISSUE130 - "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."

WORDS: 524 TIME: 00:46:44 DATE: 2008-3-27 14:42:24

This statement consists of two claims. The first assertion is that society's destiny relies on how children are socialized, and the second one is that the masses have not yet acquired how to bring up younger generation who can better society. However, in my view neither the former claim nor the latter truly reflects the practical circumstance. Moreover, in effect, both of the speaker's claims fly in the face of empirical evidence.

In the first place, when it comes to whether a child's thought has to do with socialization, I concede that enough opportunities for positive socialization conducted by respectful adults or healthy society indeed influence that child to some extend. As we all know, schools and colleges are the most common places where our next generation receives education. It is in classes that children learn how to negotiate, collaborate and learn the honor way of expressing their own ideas. Moreover, their teachers and docents show them destructive results of violence and other negative social behavior. Therefore, this social knowledge can help children grow up to be good civilian and prominent political officers, as well as wisdom.

However, socialization is just one factor that affects children's thread of growing up. There are a variety of other determinants that may have profound impact on a child. Socialization is far more from the most paramount. History is replete with examples of distinguished scientists and political leaders who were chiefly influenced by other factors, such as religious conviction, parental effect, and a seminal childhood thing. Consider, for instance, Albert Einstein's scientific contributions to the whole human beings were primarily the outcomes of the determination of his inner courage. Or, consider Beethoven's great contribution in the realm of music, which had more to do with parental influence during his childhood.

In the second place, the speaker's second claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better our society is poorly supported by empirical evidence. Any one would agree that a "better" society should be characterized by greater tolerance for distinct ideologies, greater concern for natural environment, and broader communication in culture and education. Thus, the children born in the 1960s are now indeed making society better. For instance, our society is more sensitive to public health, women's rights, differing racial peoples, and disabilities. Moreover, there is even more examples of increasing international cooperation across many states. China and Japan have cooperated ardently in chip research and celestial exploration; multi-national efforts can be easily found out in Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. Besides, Europe and America have researched innumerous health problems through communal projects. In short, the speaker's second claim does not reflect the truth that is taking place in daily life.

In summary, the pivotal factors that influence a child's upbringing should not be limited merely to socialization but rather to some other factors--such as parental impact, a peculiar event happened in childhood and private ideology. Albeit distinct people may have differing ideas about what consist of a "better" society, I find our society is evolving towards a more tolerant, esteemed, and developed one. Therefore, I tend to disagree with both counts of the statement.